JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.1989 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No. 40/1987 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 304 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that complainant-Ramdev Dugdi (PW-5) submitted a criminal complaint (Ex.D-1) in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar to the effect that accused is working in the Amrit Kaur Hospital as Ward Boy but he showed himself in the public as a Doctor and by misusing the name of a Doctor he used to earn money from the patients in a this deceitful manner. It was further alleged that sister of the complainant, Smt. Parvati Devi W/o Shri Ghanshyam Bhati is residing along with her family members comprising of herself, her husband and two minor children aged about 3 and 1 years, respectively at Shahpura Mohalla, Beawar. He further stated in the complaint that his 'jija' is an illiterate person doing the job of selling milk and curd from a shop. The accused was also familiar to this family and he introduced himself as a doctor, whereas he had no valid license or knowledge of a regular medical practitioner. On 12.9.1986, his sister Smt. Parvati Devi suffered from vomiting and diarrhea and in the afternoon at about 12.30 P.M., the accused came to the shop of Ghanshyam Bhati (jija of complainant) then, Ghanshyam Bhati apprised the accused about the illness of his wife and requested him to suggest a good doctor then, accused told him that he is also a doctor and he can medically treat her as well. Believing on the accused, Ghanshyam Bhati took the accused to his house and despite having no knowledge of a regular medical practitioner, the accused injected her two syringes of injection but her condition became more deteriorated and red spots emerged out on all over her body. When Ghanshyam Bhati asked the accused as to what is happening with his wife, the accused assured him that she will be alright within a short span of time and saying so, the accused returned to his home. When Ghanshyam Bhati asked the accused as to what is happening with his wife, the accused assured him that she will be alright within a short span of time and saying so, the accused returned to his home. When still the condition of his wife was not improved, again Ghanshyam Bhati came to the accused on the same day at 2.30 P.M. and made complaint as to what he injected to her as her condition has become more deteriorated. Thereupon, the accused prescribed him some medicines suggesting to purchase the same from Oswal Trading Company, Beawar. Since the condition of the deceased was becoming more deteriorating, he instead of going to the above-said medical shop, purchased the medicines from Mahaveer Medical Beawar, which was in his way. Since the prescription was not written by a regular medical practitioner, the shop keeper gave him medicines after giving receipt thereof on the prescription itself. The accused then salined the medicines to the deceased and returned to his home with the assurance to come back shortly and will remove the saline after exhausting the drop. When still the condition of the deceased was not improved, Ghanshyam Bhati again called the accused at 4.30 P.M. and requested him to call another doctor then, accused told him not to call any other doctor as he is prescribing some more medicines and she will be alright. When till 9.00 P.M., the condition of Smt. Parvati Devi was not improved, Ghanshyam Bhati called Dr. Gehlot, who scolded him as to who treated her as her condition is very critical and suggested him to get her admitted in the hospital but the accused persuaded Dr. Gehlot to treat her at the house itself. Thereupon, Dr. Gehlot scolded the accused for giving a wrong injection of medicine to the deceased, which reacted and prescribed some medicines. But the deceased did not get any relief and then, the accused gave her sleeping pills due to which, she became unconscious. On 13.9.1986 at 9.30 A.M. when the complainant came to know about all these things, he met Dr. Gehlot, who told him that due to injecting wrong medicines by the accused, condition of the deceased deteriorated. But the deceased did not get any relief and then, the accused gave her sleeping pills due to which, she became unconscious. On 13.9.1986 at 9.30 A.M. when the complainant came to know about all these things, he met Dr. Gehlot, who told him that due to injecting wrong medicines by the accused, condition of the deceased deteriorated. Thereupon, the complainant got admitted the deceased at Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar, but she died in the hospital on 13.9.1986 at 11.45 P.M. the learned Magistrate sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Police Station Beawar City, which registered the case vide F.I.R. No. 158/1986 against the accused for offence under Sections 279, 304, 304/171 I.P.C. and started investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the documents from the Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar relating to treatment of the deceased and recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer sent the signatures of the accused on the prescription for its tally with his specimen signatures to the Forensic Science Laboratory for getting opinion of the Handwriting Expert, which is Ex.P-47 on record. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused before the Magistrate of 1st Class for offence under Sections 304 and 170 I.P.C. 3. After committal and conclusion of trial, the Trial Court viz. Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar framed the charge against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 304 I.P.C. and read over the same to him but he denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. To support the case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited eighty nine documents. The accused was thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. After conclusion of the trial, accused appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner stated herein-above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated. Admittedly, the patient Smt. Parvati Devi admitted in the hospital on 12.9.1986 and she died in the hospital on 13.9.1986 when she was under the treatment of Dr. Gehlot. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that she was treated for the reaction of any medicine. 7. Dr. Sitaram Gehlot (PW-9) has specifically stated that she has been treated for Meningitis and she died by the same. No post mortem has been submitted to show that death of Parvati Devi was homicidal one. Gehlot. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that she was treated for the reaction of any medicine. 7. Dr. Sitaram Gehlot (PW-9) has specifically stated that she has been treated for Meningitis and she died by the same. No post mortem has been submitted to show that death of Parvati Devi was homicidal one. Only on the report of the expert that some writing is similar to the appellant, he has been convicted, whereas the expert has not given any opinion and Ex.P-2 or Ex.P-7 completely is in the hand writing of the appellant as for Q3 and Q4, no positive report has been submitted that the hand writing of the same is of the appellant. 8. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that witnesses Ghanshyam (PW-6), Mohanlal (PW-7) and Ganpatlal (PW-8) have categorically stated that the appellant has administered injection to the deceased, which deteriorates her condition and she died. Hence, he has been rightly convicted. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case. 10. Ramdev Dugdi (PW-5) is the complainant and brother of the deceased but he has no personal knowledge of the incident. He was informed about the incident by Parvati Devi and in cross-examination also, he has accepted the fact that on 13.9.1986, he could know about the illness of Parvati Devi and appellant never treated Parvati Devi in his presence. Hence, his evidence loses its significance. He is not an eye-witness to the incident. 11. Ghanshyam (PW-6) husband of the deceased has stated that appellant treated the deceased for vomiting and diarrhea but in cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that his wife was not having any fever, whereas Dr. Sitaram Gehlot (PW-9) has stated that Parvati Devi was treated for Meningitis. Mohanlal (PW-7) and Ganpatlal (PW-8) have also corroborated the statement of Ghanshyam (PW-6), who is husband of the deceased but Dr. Sitaram Gehlot (PW-9) is the star witness of the prosecution, who has treated the deceased and was admitted under his supervision and he stated that only it was informed to him that some specific drugs were given to her and drugs were proper for vomiting and diarrhea. Further, the witness has stated that Parvati Devi died due to Meningitis and she was treated for the same only. Further, the witness has stated that Parvati Devi died due to Meningitis and she was treated for the same only. She was not treated for any reaction of drug for vomiting or diarrhea. Admittedly, deceased died in hospital but at that time, no complaint was lodged by the family members of the deceased and even no post mortem was conducted, which could show that the deceased died a homicidal death or due to reaction of the drugs. 12. For the same of argument, it could be presumed that the appellant administered some drugs to the deceased as per Dr. Sitaram Gehlot (PW-9), the drugs prescribed were suitable for the treatment of for vomiting and diarrhea and they were not the cause for the death of deceased and admittedly, the deceased died due to Meningitis, which ailment was never treated by the appellant as per statement of Ghanshyam (PW-6) and other prosecution witnesses. 13. Dr. Uma Gupta (PW-3), who was the Medical Officer at Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar has stated that on the recommendation of Dr. Gehlot, Parvati Devi was admitted and she was admitted for the ailment of Meningitis and when she was admitted, she was not having any vomiting and diarrhea, which shows that vomiting and diarrhea were cured prior to her admission. 14. Moolraj (PW-1) is owner of Mahaveer Medical Store, who was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution story and stated that he is not used to sale any medicine to anyone without the prescription of the doctor. The case of the prosecution is that appellant prepared Ex.P-2 on which medicines were sold out Ex.P-2 is not the prescription but only a receipt as per Hand Writing Expert opinion. Ex.P-47 Q1 writing has been found to be in the hand writing of appellant but the same cannot be in the hand writing of the appellant as it is not the prescription but receipt prepared by the salesman of the shop. At the same time, Ex.P-7 is also said to be in the hand writing of the appellant as per Ex.P-47 Hand Writing Expert report but as the reports suggest Ex.P-7 is not completely in the hand writing of the appellant, which shows doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 15. At the same time, Ex.P-7 is also said to be in the hand writing of the appellant as per Ex.P-47 Hand Writing Expert report but as the reports suggest Ex.P-7 is not completely in the hand writing of the appellant, which shows doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 15. It is admitted case of the prosecution that Parvati Devi died on 13.9.1986 at 9.30 A.M. but admittedly, the complaint Ex.D-1 was submitted before the competent Court on 18.9.1986. Had it been the case of homicidal death, family members of the deceased should have been rushed immediately and Dr. Gehlot was also under the obligation to report the matter to the police but non reference by Dr. Gehlot makes it completely clear that it was not the homicidal death and appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 304 I.P.C. but there is nothing on record to suggest that Parvati Devi died a homicidal death per contra, as per statement of Dr. Gehlot, she died a natural death due to Meningitis. Hence, conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304-11 I.P.C. is not sustainable.In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 304 I.P.C. He be released forthwith if in custody and if not, he need not surrender and his bail bonds shall be discharged.Appeal allowed. *******